From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:08:04 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: Introduce test_seq
Message-ID: <20120803230804.GA14447@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vr4rna8y4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 03:48:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Michał Kiedrowicz <michal.kiedrowicz@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Jeff King wrote:
> >
> > 	The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
> > 	releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
> > 	commercial Unixes.
> >
> > 	We already purged it in b3431bc (Don't use seq in tests, not
> > 	everyone has it, 2007-05-02), but a few new instances have crept
> > 	in. They went unnoticed because they are in scripts that are not
> > 	run by default.
> >
> > Replace them with test_seq that is implemented with a Perl snippet
> > (proposed by Jeff).  This is better than inlining this snippet
> > everywhere it's needed because it's easier to read and it's easier to
> > change the implementation (e.g. to C) if we ever decide to remove Perl
> > from the test suite.
> >
> > Note that test_seq is not a complete replacement for seq(1).  It just
> > has what we need now.
> >
> > There are also many places that do `for i in 1 2 3 ...` but I'm not sure
> > if it's worth converting them to test_seq.  That would introduce running
> > more processes of Perl.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michał Kiedrowicz <michal.kiedrowicz@gmail.com>
> > ---
> 
> Thanks; Jeff, ack?

Yeah,

Acked-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>

> > +	"$PERL_PATH" -le 'print for "$ARGV[0]".."$ARGV[1]"' "$first" "$last"
> 
> I'd prefer not to have dq around $ARGV[]; is there a reason to have
> one around these?

I don't think they accomplish anything, and it is slightly easier to
read without them. I'm fine either way.

-Peff